In thinking it is simply unfair that the standard of education that your children received is based on your financial status.

[lucyellensmum]

Yeah yeah, this old chestnut, but i feel i have to vent.

Yesterday i had the opportunity to get some "teaching practise" in a private primary shcool. It was like a different world. Small school, small class sizes. Wonderfully behaved, active, bright and happy children. It was really lovely, certainly made me think i might want to persue a career in teaching.

BUT the one thing i couldnt get past is the fact that these children were receiving this education because their parents are in a financial position to provide this. I have never posted on these threads before because it stinks of sour grapes that i can't afford this for my child. Even my friend who teaches there cannot afford to send her children . Its not that at all, their parents clearly work very hard for what they have and i don't begrudge that for one second. I think its great.

However, why should it be that if your parents are poor, or just average, or even just above average financially that you have to take your chances in an overstretched, underfunded state system. Its fundamentally wrong imo. Even in the state system it is biased towards wealthier families because if there is a good school in that area, the property prices rocket. Leaving average families with the "rest" of the schools.

Yes, people work hard for their living and should be able to reap the rewards of their hard work. But CHILDREN don't have any choice as to what family they are born into. Surely a child of a Junkie parent who has no interest in her/his child and sponges off the state etc (to take an extreme) has the same right to a decent education as that of a child who's parents are lawyers and MDs of major businesses.

I'm actually quite lucky, our local primaries are all pretty good schools. The secondaries are OK too. And YES i would totally abandon my principles and send my child to private school if i could afford it. The school i am describing has a 100% GCSE grade C or above pass rate, compared to the 70% of my DDs old school, compared to the 50% at the local state secondary unselective school.

The schooling system in this country is blatantly unfair, however i wouldnt want to be the person charged with putting it right as i dont have the answers.

The state system is generally crap because its badly managed and underfunded NOT because there is a private system available as an alternative. The families who have the funds to send their kids to private school pay their taxes to support the state system just the same as the rest of us but choose to send their children to private school out of their 'disposable income'.

Agree, the state system should be better and should offer as good an education as the private sector. BUT it is not the fault of the private system or the parents who use it that it doesn't.

Having said that there are some fab state schools. I went to 3, there are several in my area for ds1 who is just coming up to school age and although we could probably afford private, I'm more than happy (ethically and practically) for him to attend the state system.

and how do you know it's badly managed?

Sweeping generalisations don't help this type of argument at all.

I agree with Fio and Grapefruitmoon. My parents' didn't value my education (or anything else for that matter) so they sent me to a private (boarding) school where I dossed around and came away without fulfilling my potential. Had they shown an interest in their children and their education, saved their money and sent them to a state school, I am sure we would have all done a lot better.

I'm not bitter btw, far from it. I have a degree and have had a good career. I totally agree that life is what you make of it.

"Wonderfully behaved, active, bright and happy children" from the OP could be used to describe my children's state primary school. They are the usual mixed bag of kids and they fit this description because the school, parents and community really care about their education.

"I do think the state 'system' is crap, but that is more because of it's inappropriate attempt to make state schools more like private, with similar value systems!"

What an odd thing to say. What on earth do you mean by this?

My DCs' (state) school has a hugely professional management team that is widely respected throughout the school.

All achievements are praised - whether it's academic, sporting or otherwise.

Students are encouraged to respect each other and members of staff.

Good manners, IMO. Is this what you mean?

Or do you assume that the state system shouldn't be about respect and praise for achievement?

Whilst I don't think the state schools are badly managed overall, IME a number of the "failing" schools do suffer from poor management structures. And this is a serious concern for those schools, the education of thos epupils and the retention of the teachers working at them.

In answer to the OP - YES, it's grossly unfair. Private education and private health care are bastardly ideas and I thank God we have the NHS and state education, as shitty as they might be sometimes - at least they exist in this country.

What did I say about the fault of the fee paying parents....see state educated and I can't make myself understood.

I think what you get out of your education is down to parental influence. I think you need to chance how parents see education - somehow make it cooler.

katak - I don't see my home as inferior as it happens. I was just pointing out that it is a far cry from the houses that my DC's friends have and it is far from ok for the 7 of us.

I do not feel hard done by in anyway and I do not begrudge the money paid for their education.

I am not an expert on education (private or otherwise) but I cannot see how people can say that a private education isn't better than a state one unless they have experienced both - as I have.
IME - private education is far superior

I would send both my children to private school in a heartbeat if I could afford it tbh

I think in education terms, there should be an agreed minimum level of quality. The rich will always buy better thigns for their children and that includes schooling. And many many children get a good education in the state sector. But it's patchy and not guaranteed.

'Undisrupted lessons' is a very valid reson for going independent - far more important than exam results. It is very diffiuclt for head teacher in the state sector to expel disruptive pupils, so thse who do want to learn suffer. We have chosen independent for our DC for secondary becuase we want them to have the opportunity to learn in an environment where learning is cool - the results they achieve are immaterial, its the learning and the enjoyment of it that matters, and that does NOT happen in our local state secondary. There is no way my DS could single-handedly counter the 'too kool for skool' mentality, and his teen years are too precious to waste so the system has beaten us, and we will just have to pay up instead.

The national curriculum agrees content. I think MB is right. There are so many schools in which students and teachers struggle with a high level of disruption from a few. A good education will be hard to deliver in those circumstances.

nkf - I think there is supposed to be a miniumum level - isn't that why OFSTED exists? And isn't that what the Government are suposed to be working towards with putting schools into special measures until they reach their minimum quality standard?

I know. I do believe that there is the political will to try to sort education out. I have my doubts about the role of OFSTED. I think schools can be good at passing OFSTED tests. Their reports mean something but they don't tell the whole stoy. But then nothing does.

Rather simplistic op.. What do you think makes one school very good and another school rubbish?